Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skallgrim" data-source="post: 5022656" data-attributes="member: 79271">I'm not sure how so many people can vote "No" on balance unless you assume that the writer of the book was, in fact, crazy or a liar.  Since you specified that you were not asking whether the edition was balanced, but whether it was intended to be balanced, and EGG specifically says that game balance was a design consideration, either he was crazy (and saying things that had no relation to reality), or a liar (and deliberately spreading falsehood).As many, many, many posters have said, it was a different type of balance that was intended, but clearly, unless you can somehow show that EGG is using the words "game balance" in a logically or factually incorrect way, I think it is blindingly obvious that game balance was intended.I mean, clearly one can have different opinions on what is considered 'game balance', but if I say I'm going to make 'spicy meatballs', and the meatballs I make are what I consider spicy, then clearly, I have made the meatballs I set out to make.  Maybe you might not consider them spicy, but it would be inaccurate to say that I, in fact, did not actually make spicy meatballs.On the side topic of 'quick/slow' game balance progression (where wizards are balanced by being weak at low levels and powerful at high levels), this sort of game balance had one obvious problem (wizards dominated late stage games) and one less obvious problem.  It did not adequately account for people starting a new character during the game.  Either they started at a lower level than everyone else, and were substantially disadvantaged, or they started at around the same xp level as everyone else, and, depending on class choice, might not have to suffer through any levels of 'weaksauce' to get to their 'sweet spot'.</blockquote>

Verification